Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, the DC Download, to get updates on what’s happening on the Hill, what we are reading, key issues to watch, and progressive analysis and tools.

 
 

DC Download 07.14.2025

Supreme Court 2024-2025 Term Roundup

Author: Chenelle Hammonds, Senior Policy Associate (chenelle@progressivecaucuscenter.org)

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has wrapped up its 2024-2025 term, issuing decisions that will affect gun safety, trans rights, police accountability, and much more. Below is a brief rundown of key decisions and their expected impacts. This list is not exhaustive.

U.S. v. Skrmetti – Transgender Rights

Case Background: A Tennessee law banned gender-affirming hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors, prompting a constitutional challenge under the Equal Protection clause. Under the law, health care providers are prohibited from administering a medical procedure or prescribing or dispensing hormones to minors when provided in a way the state considers “inconsistent” with a person’s sex designated at birth.

Decision: In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS allowed Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors to go into effect—without deciding whether the law is constitutional—while the case moves through lower courts. 

Impact: Health care providers who violate the law could face $25,000 fines, civil penalties, and professional discipline for providing care to trans youth. The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the law makes similar bans more legally secure across 26 additional states that have also passed restrictions. Civil liberties groups warn that the ruling will deny life-saving medical care, increase mental health risks for trans youth, and embolden states to pass even more extreme laws targeting transgender individuals. This harm is compounded by recent actions from the Trump administration that, in totality, broadly roll back policies affecting trans youth. These actions include the elimination of the federal transgender youth resource page, the cancellation of a LGBTQ+ suicide prevention hotline, cuts targeting youth gender-affirming care, and an executive order directing federal agencies to remove LGBTQ+ content from their websites and defund gender-affirming care programs.

More on this:

Bondi v. VanDerStok – Ghost Guns

Case Background: This case challenged a Biden administration rule requiring “ghost guns”—homemade, untraceable firearms—to be regulated like commercial firearms. The rule required manufacturers to include serial numbers, conduct background checks, and maintain sales records.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the Biden administration’s ghost gun regulations, ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) can require firearm kits and parts to follow the same rules as completed guns.

Impact: The decision reaffirms key safeguards aimed at curbing the spread of untraceable weapons, which law enforcement agencies report are increasingly used in violent crimes. It helps maintain baseline public safety standards and upholds the federal government’s ability to close dangerous firearm loopholes. Officials in major cities have cited the rule as critical for investigations, with early data showing the ghost gun surge has slowed in cities like Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

More on this:

Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos – Gun Manufacturer Liability 

Background: Mexico sued U.S. gunmakers for allegedly fueling cartel violence by knowingly enabling illegal gun trafficking. The lawsuit challenged the broad legal shield that protects gun manufacturers from liability, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Decision: The Court dismissed the case, ruling that U.S. gun manufacturers are protected under PLCAA, even when harm occurs outside U.S. borders.

Impact: The decision reinforces the gun industry’s broad immunity, even amid growing international pressure. It closes the door on similar lawsuits from foreign governments seeking to hold U.S. manufacturers accountable for gun violence abroad. 

More on this: 

TikTok Inc. v. Garland – Tech Censorship

Background: Congress passed a federal law requiring TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app or face a U.S. ban, citing alleged national security concerns. 

Decision: The Court upheld the law, ruling that the government’s national security rationale outweighed free speech concerns.

Impact: The decision paves the way for broader federal authority to ban or restrict foreign-owned digital platforms, raising concerns about censorship and executive overreach. Experts caution that a TikTok ban could create global ripple effects. Countries like China may retaliate by restricting U.S. tech companies. Domestically, small business owners that rely on TikTok could face significant revenue losses or even be forced to shut down entirely. Additionally, the impact may be felt internationally, as the platform has become a billion-dollar economic driver for small to medium-sized businesses in Europe. 

President Trump has repeatedly extended the negotiation period for TikTok’s divestment, despite being a vocal supporter of the ban during his first term. 

More on this: 

Barnes v. Felix – Police Use of Force

Background: This case involved a Texas Constable who was charged with unreasonable use of deadly force in the shooting of an unarmed black man, 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes. The officer stopped Barnes over a $6.45 unpaid toll ticket from his girlfriend’s rental car, which was later linked to a previous driver. The officer claimed the use of deadly force was justified, even though the individual was unarmed and suspected of a non-violent offense. Lower courts dismissed the Barnes family’s lawsuit under qualified immunity, relying on a narrow reading of the events.

Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that courts must assess police use-of-force claims by considering the totality of the circumstances, not just isolated facts. 

Impact: The decision strengthens civil rights protections by requiring a more comprehensive review of law enforcement actions. It also limits how lower courts apply qualified immunity, making it harder to dismiss police misconduct cases prematurely. Advocates have cited the ruling as a rare but significant win for police accountability.

More on this:

Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services – Reverse Discrimination

Background: The Court considered whether to lower the bar for white employees to bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case centers on a white, heterosexual woman who was demoted and passed over for promotions in favor of LGBTQ+ colleagues. Lower courts dismissed her case, applying a higher “standard of proof” (background circumstances) for plaintiffs from majority backgrounds.

Decision: The Court struck down the background circumstances requirement in a 9-0 decision, holding that all Title VII plaintiffs must be treated “equally under the law,” regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The justices ruled that plaintiffs should not face a higher burden of proof simply because they belong to a historically advantaged group.

Impact: While the decision does not weaken Title VII protections, it does lower the threshold for bringing reverse discrimination claims, opening the door for more white, straight, and male plaintiffs to challenge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the workplace. It may also embolden plaintiffs to bring lawsuits aiming to dismantle diversity-focused hiring and promotion programs, especially following the Court’s 2023 affirmative action ruling and the Trump administration’s attacks on diversity initiatives.

More on this:

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton – Protected Speech

Background: Texas passed a law requiring adult websites to verify the age of all users and post state-authored warnings about pornography. The law applied to any site where one-third or more of the content is deemed “harmful to minors.” Free speech and privacy advocates argued the law violated the First Amendment by restricting adults’ access to lawful content and eroding online anonymity. 

Decision: In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the Texas law, finding that the law imposes only a minimal burden on free speech and is justified by the state’s interest in protecting minors.

Impact: This ruling opens the door for more state-level internet restrictions under the guise of “child protection,” and could prevent adults from accessing legal speech and undermine their privacy. By lowering the bar for what counts as a “reasonable” speech restriction online, the Court may also embolden lawmakers to pursue broader censorship measures or anti-LGBTQ+ policies using “child protection” as a justification.

More on this:


Louisiana v. Callais – Voting Rights

Background: After Louisiana was ordered to add a second majority-Black congressional district, the state passed a new map in 2024. That map was immediately challenged by a group of white voters, who argued the new district was unfair. A lower court struck down the map, and the case was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. Instead of issuing a ruling, however, the Court announced it would hear the case again next term, leaving the map, and the future of fair representation in Louisiana, in limbo. 

Decision: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court chose not to issue a final ruling and instead ordered the case to be re-argued next term. The delay leaves the lower court decision in place and creates ongoing legal uncertainty months before the 2026 election cycle.

Impact: The Court’s indecision leaves Louisiana’s congressional map unclear ahead of the next election cycle. Voting rights advocates warn the delay undermines legal clarity around Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and signals a possible weakening of Allen v. Milligan, which reaffirmed protections against racial vote dilution just last term. Ultimately, if the Court sides with the challengers, the ruling could set a precedent allowing white voters to dismantle districts created to ensure fair representation for Black voters. 

More on this:


Mahmoud v. Taylor – LGBTQ+ Curriculum Opt-Out

Background: Montgomery County, Maryland added supplemental LGBTQ+-inclusive books in elementary schools, and initially let parents opt their children out of related lessons. In 2023, the district eliminated that option, prompting a lawsuit by religious parents seeking notice and the ability to exempt their children from those lessons. A federal district court refused to block the policy temporarily, saying the parents hadn’t shown that their children would face serious harm. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and the case is still moving forward in that court as it considers the full legal arguments.

Decision: The Supreme Court disagreed and temporarily blocked the policy, requiring the school to notify parents and allow exemptions while the case moves forward in the Fourth Circuit.

Impact: In requiring schools to notify parents and allow opt-outs for LGBTQ-inclusive books, even when the material is age-appropriate and non-explicit, the Court bolstered the power of “parental rights”-based arguments. Educators and civil rights groups warn this could lead to a chilling effect, where schools avoid inclusive content altogether to avoid controversy or lawsuits. The ruling also risks reinforcing a narrative that acknowledging LGBTQ+ identities in the classroom is somehow harmful or inappropriate, at a time when many schools are working to create inclusive environments for students who are marginalized or different.  As the minority justices dissented, the ruling sends a message that learning about different identities is a potential violation of religious liberty, reinforcing harmful stigma and isolation for queer youth. 

More on this:

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management – Preventative Care Access

Background: Texas-based employers and individuals sued over the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that insurance plans cover preventative care—like cancer screenings and HIV-preventition drugs—without out-of-pocket costs. A federal judge in Texas sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (which determines eligible preventative services) wasn’t properly appointed under the Constitution.

Decision: In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the current system that decides what preventative health services must be covered under the Affordable Care Act. The Court said the government officials who make those decisions were properly appointed, but did not decide on other parts of the case, like whether current coverage rules violate religious beliefs or if Congress gave too much power to a federal task force. Those questions will now go back to the lower courts for further review.

Impact: The ruling protects affordable access to preventative health care, blocking yet another legal threat to the Affordable Care Act. Consequently, millions of people will have continued access to these services without paying out-of-pocket. However, because the case is returning to the lower courts, there is still a chance that future rulings could limit or change what health plans are required to cover, especially for religious employers. Earlier religious freedom challenges to the ACA have done just that, like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on their beliefs. 

More on this:


Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic – Abortion Funding

Background: In 2018, South Carolina’s governor issued an executive order removing Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program, even though federal law prohibits Medicaid from paying for abortions (and South Carolina had not passed any law to expand coverage beyond that). Planned Parenthood and a Medicaid patient sued, arguing that patients have a right to choose any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood, which delivers roughly 96% of its care as preventative and primary services. Lower courts blocked the removal, keeping Planned Parenthood in the SC Medicaid system while the case moved forward.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid patients do not have the right to sue state officials over being denied access to specific providers under the Medicaid Act’s “free-choice of provider” clause. This means states can exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid without facing lawsuits from patients.

Impact: The ruling empowers states to exclude Planned Parenthood and similar clinics from Medicaid. This could reduce access to birth control, STI testing, cancer screenings, and prenatal care, especially in medically underserved areas. The decision weakens federal protections for low-income patients by limiting patients’ ability to choose trusted providers for essential care. 

More on this:

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo – Environmental Impacts

Background: A Utah-based group proposed building a new railway (the Uinta Basin Railway) to help transport crude oil out of Utah and across multiple states, including Colorado. However, environmental groups and Eagle County, CO challenged the project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), arguing that federal regulators failed to fully consider the long-term climate and community impacts. A lower court sided with the challengers, stating that regulators needed to take a harder look at the indirect and downstream consequences of the railway.

Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling and sided with the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. The Court held that federal agencies are only required to consider the direct environmental impacts from projects.

Impact: The decision significantly weakens NEPA by limiting the scope of environmental reviews. Agencies can now greenlight fossil fuel projects without fully examining their broader climate consequences. The ruling sets a precedent that favors industry over environmental and community concerns, which could make it harder for frontline communities to use federal law to fight harmful projects during a time when climate impacts are intensifying and being exacerbated by corporate greed. 

More on this:

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency – Clean Water

Background: San Francisco challenged a water pollution permit that required it to ensure local waters met general water-quality standards, even if the city was already meeting specific pollution limits. The city argued this was unfair and went beyond what the Clean Water Act allows. 

Decision: The Supreme Court sided with the city of San Francisco in a 5-4 ruling. The majority ruled that the Clean Water Act does not allow the EPA to hold permit holders responsible for broad “end-result” provisions, like requiring the city to ensure that water meets general water-quality standards if those standards aren’t tied to specific pollution levels coming from the city itself.

Impact: This ruling weakens the EPA’s ability to enforce broad clean water protections by limiting enforcement to specific, pollutant-based rules. Justice Barrett, who led the dissent, warned that the decision could make it harder to protect water impacted by multiple sources of pollution. Environmental groups echoed these concerns, saying the decision could harm low-income communities, where water is more likely to be polluted by many overlapping sources. 

More on this:

Martin v. United States – Federal Law Enforcement Accountability

Background: In 2017, a FBI SWAT team raided the wrong home in Georgia, throwing a flash-bang grenade, damaging the property, and detaining the family inside. The family sued the federal government, but lower courts dismissed the case stating the government was “immune” due to agents using their discretion and acting under federal authority. 

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the family. The Court said the government can’t use the Supremacy Clause to unilaterally block all claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) or eliminate victims’ right to sue altogether. The high court sent the case back to lower courts to decide which claims can move forward. 

Impact: The ruling makes it harder for the federal government to avoid responsibility when agents harm people during raids or searches. It reaffirms that families can sue under the FTCA and that being a federal officer doesn’t automatically shield someone from accountability. Civil rights groups have praised the decision as a win for people seeking justice after government misconduct. 

More on this:

United States v. Texas – Nationwide Injunctions

Background: Lower federal courts recently issued nationwide injunctions blocking the enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order on birthright citizenship across the entire U.S., not just for the parties in those lawsuits. The federal government appealed, asking the Supreme Court to decide whether sweeping injunctions are legally allowed to block the President’s actions. 

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have authority to issue nationwide injunctions in a 6-3 decision. The majority held that an injunction must be tailored to the people actually suing, not applied for broad, universal relief. However, universal injunctions may still be issued in class action lawsuits.

Impact: This ruling sharply curtails the power of individual federal judges to block federal policies nationwide. Future injunctions must be carefully tailored to the specific individuals before the court, allowing the lower courts to obstruct executive actions only when justified for that plaintiff, not the entire country. 

Legal experts have warned that this may create a patchwork of enforcement and inconsistent legal protections across the country. It also raises the question of how to provide true “relief” to plaintiffs in certain circumstances without a broader injunction: for example, in a school desegregation case, a court ruling allowing a single plaintiff to attend the school would not truly remedy the problem of segregation. The case represents yet another step towards consolidation of executive power that the courts have limited ability to check.

More on this: